(13-12-2011 11:53 AM)germanyt Wrote: No, I was humpin imaginary Shelby (the owner's neice, not the car y'all) in front of you.

Ah yes, who hasn't done this?

I don't believe in God.
However, it's not the argument that God can't destroy himself that convinces me. What purpose would that serve for God to commit suicide? Scratch that. God did commit suicide on the cross.
But for one thing, how do we know that God can't kill himself? And how do we know that God can't make an object so heavy that he can't lift and still be all powerful? Someone who believes in God, usually believes he exists outside our sense of time and space and physical laws. So these sorts of philosophical exercises are fun to think about, but they aren't the "zingers" that non-believers think they are.

I totally understand what you mean. But it's just as easy for theists to dismiss these arguments under the guise of semantics as it is to come up with them in the first place. That doesn't make the arguement less intriguing.

Either God can or can't make the heavy stone. Those are the only two options. Whether he would or not isn't the question. Can he, or can't he? If he can't, well that is all the answer you need. God would be incapable of doing something. If he can make the stone but can't lift it then he would still be incapable of something. It's been there all along. Middle school philosophy has proved god to be false. I mean, how can he be God if he is capable of mistakes or incapable of accomplishing something?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

But that's circular philosophy. You ARE using semantics to justify your understanding of omnipotence. If there was another word that was created that meant "all powerful but unable to contradict" this wouldn't even be a question. That word doesn't exist because it hovers above our realm of logistics and is viewed as impossible; but, how can we say, as finite beings, that anything is impossible?

The question serves as a lulz. Nothing more. It cannot be taken as argumentative evidence because it's flawed philosophy.

(13-12-2011 12:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote: But that's circular philosophy. You ARE using semantics to justify your understanding of omnipotence. If there was another word that was created that meant "all powerful but unable to contradict" this wouldn't even be a question. That word doesn't exist because hovers above our realm of logistics and is viewed as impossible; but, how can we say, as finite beings, that anything is impossible?

The question serves as a lulz. Nothing more. It cannot be taken as argumentative evidence because it's flawed philosophy.

Think for a minute about the words 'all powerful'. I've just convinced myself beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as 'all powerful'.

I am now a gnostic atheist.

semi srs

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

Quote:1) Yes, I believe it is divinely inspired. Why? Because it's what my faith and the Holy Spirit have led me to believe. I also have faith that God inspired the canonization of the books. I have no tangible proof for this except my own faith.

Agh, this is what I don't get about religious belief. I don't understand how someone can base their entire life/belief system on something so flimsy. Do you care to clarify why you would use this approach when it comes to having what you believe is eternal life on the line? And do you use this approach in any other aspect of your life besides religion? If so, could you give some examples?
Thanks!

I'm sorry, but masquerading as a human did not convince the Jews. Nor did it convince everybody else who is not a Christian. So I would not consider that to be a "better" way of communicating to his people.

Have you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? In this book, an alien race communicates with every human being on Earth simultaneously in order to tell them that their planet is about to be destroyed. To me, that would be a much more effective way of spreading a message than relying on a Christ cult to spread the word to all parts of the world (translating the already-translated-from-Hebrew-and-Aramaic and Greek texts to all sorts of other languages, which leads me to a side note: Why didn't your god create a text that could be read by anybody, regardless of language or literary skill, so that there is no squabbling over translation/interpretation? Wouldn't that make things a lot clearer?)

Also, the oral transmission of a text is very important to the development of religion, including Christianity, because it was through oral translation that the original stories (like the Flood, the Resurrection, etc.) became blown out of proportion. For example, we have a flood story dating back to the Mesopotamian era in The Epic of Gilgamesh, but in this story, it was only a local flood. By oral transmission, this flood became a world-wide one in the folklore of the Semites, and was recorded as so in their works.

So, yes, oral transmission of a message is detrimental to the original message. We have examples of how language itself changes if it is not written down: just compare a piece of Old English writing to Middle English writing. They're practically different languages. And the reason for this? Because Anglo-Saxon territory was occupied by the French, which briefly became the official language (thus, the language that was used for writing). When language itself is so malleable, doesn't it make sense that messages transmitted through language are susceptible to change over time as well?

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula

Quote:Agh, this is what I don't get about religious belief. I don't understand how someone can base their entire life/belief system on something so flimsy. Do you care to clarify why you would use this approach when it comes to having what you believe is eternal life on the line? And do you use this approach in any other aspect of your life besides religion? If so, could you give some examples?
Thanks!

Heh, Chas asked the exact same thing.

I base it on what I guided to believe after my conversion. If I have faith that God chose me salvation, then I have faith that God will lead me to truth through the Bible. I have no other evidence than that.

Also, no I don't. There isn't an aspect in my life that I base my decisions on the concept of faith, but, then again, I do have faith that God has preordained everything in my life including me typing this response; so, I guess, I base my entire existence on faith.

Quote:I'm sorry, but masquerading as a human did not convince the Jews. Nor did it convince everybody else who is not a Christian. So I would not consider that to be a "better" way of communicating to his people.

Have you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? In this book, an alien race communicates with every human being on Earth simultaneously in order to tell them that their planet is about to be destroyed. To me, that would be a much more effective way of spreading a message than relying on a Christ cult to spread the word to all parts of the world (translating the already-translated-from-Hebrew-and-Aramaic and Greek texts to all sorts of other languages, which leads me to a side note: Why didn't your god create a text that could be read by anybody, regardless of language or literary skill, so that there is no squabbling over translation/interpretation? Wouldn't that make things a lot clearer?)

Also, the oral transmission of a text is very important to the development of religion, including Christianity, because it was through oral translation that the original stories (like the Flood, the Resurrection, etc.) became blown out of proportion. For example, we have a flood story dating back to the Mesopotamian era in The Epic of Gilgamesh, but in this story, it was only a local flood. By oral transmission, this flood became a world-wide one in the folklore of the Semites, and was recorded as so in their works.

So, yes, oral transmission of a message is detrimental to the original message. We have examples of how language itself changes if it is not written down: just compare a piece of Old English writing to Middle English writing. They're practically different languages. And the reason for this? Because Anglo-Saxon territory was occupied by the French, which briefly became the official language (thus, the language that was used for writing). When language itself is so malleable, doesn't it make sense that messages transmitted through language are susceptible to change over time as well?

Oh yeah, I know these facts. And, I know it's like the "whisper game". Logically, it doesn't add up. I acknowledge this. I accept this. However, my faith in an all powerful God, to me, holds more weight, and I have faith that His instructions in the Bible are inerrant.

(13-12-2011 02:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote: ... and I have faith that His instructions in the Bible are inerrant.

Even though many of those instruction are evil, barbaric, or mysogenistic.
Even though there are contradictory instructions.
Even though having faith in God and faith in the Bible are two different things.

I've been polite, but, really, my patience is wearing thin.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(13-12-2011 02:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote: ... and I have faith that His instructions in the Bible are inerrant.

Even though many of those instruction are evil, barbaric, or mysogenistic.
Even though there are contradictory instructions.
Even though having faith in God and faith in the Bible are two different things.

(13-12-2011 02:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote: ... and I have faith that His instructions in the Bible are inerrant.

Even though many of those instruction are evil, barbaric, or mysogenistic.
Even though there are contradictory instructions.
Even though having faith in God and faith in the Bible are two different things.

I've been polite, but, really, my patience is wearing thin.

What do you want from me?

Nothing - my hope for you is that you get over your delusion.

But I do apologize - I didn't mean my patience with you personally. More that my patience with following this thread is just about done. I don't want to become impolite, so I may have to just not look at this thread anymore.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(13-12-2011 02:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote: ... and I have faith that His instructions in the Bible are inerrant.

Even though many of those instruction are evil, barbaric, or mysogenistic.
Even though there are contradictory instructions.
Even though having faith in God and faith in the Bible are two different things.

I've been polite, but, really, my patience is wearing thin.

What do you want from me?

Nothing - my hope for you is that you get over your delusion.

But I do apologize - I didn't mean my patience with you personally. More that my patience with following this thread is just about done. I don't want to become impolite, so I may have to just not look at this thread anymore.

Sorry man. Don't mean to make you fume.

But, can't you just separate your personal feelings about what I believe and view this thread as a learning tool? Use it as a way to learn about the whats and whys of different beliefs.